• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why materialism is probably false: A Hindu argument

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
And as usual you are selectively citing. What about the Upanishads that say "Then Brahman will that he shall be many, then Brahman thought, Brahman is the Lord, Worship Brahman the creator etc



Verily in the beginning, All this was Atman, one only, there was nothing else blinking whatsorever. He thought "Shal I send forth worlds" He send forth these worlds

Aitareya Upanishad

He the knower of Self, knows the highest home of Brahman, in which all is contained and shines brightly. The wise one without desiring happiness, worship that person, transcend this seed and are not born again.

Mundaka Upanishad


He who knows the Brahman attains the highest Brahman. On this the following verse is recorded: He who knows Brahman, which is the cause and not the effect, which is conscious which is without end, as hidden in the depths of the heart, in highest ether, enjoys all blessings, at one with omniscient Brahman

He wished, may I be many, may I grow forth. He brooded over himself, like a man performing penance. After he had thus brooded, he created all, whatever there is

Taitttriya Upanishad


But what is praised in the Upanishads is the highest Brahman, and in it there is the triad. The highest Brahman is the safe support, it is imperishable. The Brahma-students, when they have known what is within this world, are devoted and merges into Brahman, free from birth. The Lord supports all this together, the perishable and the imperishable, the developed and the undeveloped. The living Self, not being a lord, is bound, because he has to enjoy the fruits of his works, but when he has known God, he is freed from all fetters.

This whole universe is filled by this person, to whom there is nothing superior, from whom there is nothing different, than whom there is nothing smaller or larger, who stands alone, fixed like a tree in the sky. That which is beyond this world is without form and without suffering. They, who know it, become immortal, but others suffer in pain. That Bhagvat exists in the faces, the heads and necks of all, he swells in the cave of the heart of all beings, he is all pervading, therefore he is the omnipresent Shiva. That person is the great lord; he is the mover of existence; he possesses the purest power of reaching everything, he is light, he is undecaying

He is the creator and supporter of the gods, Rudra, the great seer, the lord of all, who saw Hiryangarbh(primordial womb of the universe), may he endow us with good thoughts. He who is the sovereign of gods, he in whom all the worlds rest, he who rules over all two footed and four-footed beings, to that god let us sacrifice our oblation

He being one, rules over all and everything, so that the universal germ ripens its nature, diversifies all nature that can be ripened and determines all qualities.

Some wise men deluded, speak of nature, and others of time as the cause for everything; but it is the greatness of the God by which this Brahma-wheel is made to turn. It is at the command of him who always covers this world, the knower, the time of time, who assumes qualities and all knowledge, it as his command, that this work, creation unfolds itself, which is called earth, water, fire, air and ether. He who, after he has done that work, rested again.

He is the One God, hidden in all beings, all pervading, the Self within all beings, watching over all works, dwelling in all beings, the witness, the perceiver, the only one, free from all qualities

Shvetasvatara Upanishad

Summary of the words used to describe Brahman

"He thought"
"Worship that person"
"He created all"
"Conscious"
"Omnscient Lord"
"He is the One God"
"Rules over all beings"
"Omnipresent"

It will therefore become clear to the readers that "Brahman" was Sayak is passing off here as "ur-field" as the basis of all laws of physics, chemistry biology and consciousness etc, is none other than the Hindu concept of God. Not only is what Sayak presenting pseudoscience(dressing up Hindu god in fancy scientific words) it is pseudo-Hinduism too(misrepresenting the Hindu god as some abstract field)

Let me repeat

Verse 3.8.8 BHU by Yajnavalkya

sa hovāca, etadvai tadakśaraḥ, gārgi brāhmaṇā abhivadanti, asthūlamanaṇvahrasvamadīrghamalohitamasnehamacchāyamatamo'-vāyvanākāśamasaṅgamacakśuṣkamaśrotramavāgamano'-tejaskamaprāṇamamukhamamātramanantaramabāhyam, na tadaśnāti kiṃcana, na tadaśnāti kaścana

IT is neither coarse or fine; neither short or long; IT has neither blood or fat; IT is without shadow or darkness; IT is without air or space; IT is without contact, taste or smell; it is without sight or hearing; IT is without speech or mind; IT is without energy, life force or speech; IT is beyond measure; it has nothing within it or outside of it; it does not eat anything, nor does anyone eat it.

etasya vā akśarasya praśāsane gārgi sūryācandramasau vidhṛtau tiṣṭhataḥ, etasya vā akśarasya praśāsane gārgi dyāvāpṛthivyau vidhṛte tiṣṭhataḥ, etasya vā akśarasya praśāsane gārgi nimeṣā muhūrtā ahorātrāṇyardhamāsā māsā ṛtavaḥ saṃvatsarā iti vidhṛtāstiṣṭhanti; etasya vā akśarasya praśāsane gārgi prācyo'nyā nadyaḥ syandante śvetebhyaḥ parvatebhyaḥ, pratīcyo'nyāḥ, yāṃ yāṃ ca diśamanu; etasya vā akśarasya praśāsane gārgi dadato manuṣyāḥ praśaṃsanti, yajamānaṃ devāḥ, darvīṃ pitaro'nvāyattāḥ || 9 ||

9. Under the mighty rule of this Imperishable, O Gārgī, the sun and moon are held in their positions; under the mighty rule of this Imperishable, O Gārgī, heaven and earth maintain their positions; under the mighty rule of this Imperishable, O Gārgī, moments, Muhūrtas,[2]days and nights, fortnights, months, seasons and years are held in their respective places; under the mighty rule of this Imperishable, O Gārgī, some rivers flow eastward from the White Mountains, others flowing westward continue in that direction, [Page 520] and still others keep to their respective courses; under the mighty rule of this Imperishable, O Gārgī, men praise those that give, the gods depend on the sacrificer, and the Manes on independent offerings (Darvīhoma).[3]


yo vā etadakśaraṃ gārgyaviditvāsmiṃlloke juhoti yajate tapastapyate bahūni varṣasahasrāṇi, antavadevāsya tadbhavati; yo vā etadakśaraṃ gārgyaviditvāsmāllokātpraiti sa kṛpaṇaḥ; atha ya etadakśaraṃ gārgi viditvāsmāllokātpraiti sa brāhmaṇaḥ ॥ 10 ॥

10. He, O Gārgī, who in this world, without knowing this Immutable, offers oblations in the fire, performs sacrifices and undergoes austerities even for many thousand years, finds all such acts but perishable; he, O Gārgī, who departs from this world without knowing this Immutable, is miserable. But he, O Gārgī, who departs from this world after knowing this Immutable, is a knower of Brahman (Brahmana).

tadvā etadakśaraṃ gārgyadṛṣṭaṃ draṣṭṛ, aśrutaṃ śrottṛ, amataṃ mantṛ, avijñātaṃ vijñātṛ; nānyadato'sti draṣṭṛ, nānyadato'sti śrotṛ, nānyadato'sti mantṛ, nānyadato'sti vijñātṛ; etasminnu khalvakśare gārgyākāśa otaśca protaśceti || 11 ||

This is the imperishable Gargi, that sees but can't be seen; that hears but can't be heard; that thinks but can't be thought of; that perceives but can't be perceived. Besides this imperishable there is none that sees, none that hears, none that thinks and none that perceives. On this very Imperishable Gargi, is space woven back and forth.


You also forget that Brahman, in its plural manifestation as the Atman and Purusha in everything does think, do and know everything (all actions, all phenomena, all consciousness, all knowledge is ultimately Its manifestation), but IT itself is none of that. As Yajnavalkya tells Maitreyi,

For when there is a duality of some kind, then one can smell the other, one can hear the other, one can see the other, one can greet the other, and the one can perceive the other.
When, however, the Whole has become one's very self, then who is there for one to smell and by what means? Who is there for one to hear and by what means? Who is there for one to see and by what means? Who is there for one to see and by what means? Who is there for one to greet and by what means? Who is there for one to think and by what means? Who is there for one to perceive and by what means?By what means can one perceive the him by means of whom one perceives this whole world? Look - by what means can one perceive the perceiver?




I think the upanisad is quite clear as to who among the rishi-s has the most authoritative and victorious view of Brahman. I am going by the unambiguous pronouncement of Yajnavalkya on this matter. Every thing else is mere elaboration using metaphors, poetry etc. Various models to make it more easily understandable to students. Surely you understand the difference between a debate among Brahmajnani-s (BHU debate) and a simpler easy to digest version provided for the benefit of students (Chandayoga, Katha) or somewhat less enlightened Kshatriya (Arjuna in Gita).

In conclusion:- Spiritwarrior is like a person who, after seeing examples of flat world-maps made by cartographers for convenience of use, has mistakenly come to the conclusion that geologists think the world is indeed flat and is accusing everyone who says its a spherical world to be pseudo-scientist!
 
Last edited:

sealchan

Well-Known Member
All thought is dualistic. All muscles may do is either contract or expand. Thoughts are always this is this or that is that. What have we to say about what is beyond thought or action?

Only that like our muscles, our thoughts get tied up in knots and sometimes we need to work out those knots so that our thoughts and actions are free and operate without unnecessary pain or distraction.

Consciousness and the Universe exist like some great duality. Truth divides into subjective and objective. Truth should be accurate and relevant. Truth is a dance. To contain truth we will need a lot of dancers to hold hands and form a circle. Facing the center we will only see each other but there Brahman will be contained.
 

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
^^ I will once again repeat. In big letters, as Sayak has a habit of avoiding his opponents arguments, but when everybody can see I have made the argument, they will see Sayak is deliberately avoiding the argument, which thereby automatically discredits him:


And as usual you are selectively citing. What about the Upanishads that say "Then Brahman willed that he shall be many, then Brahman thought, Brahman is the Lord, Worship Brahman the creator etc

If you are trying to present an interpretation of Vedanta(Upanishads) then you have to present a coherent interpretation of all 13 principal Upanishads and Brahma sutras. That is what every Vedanta school has done, starting from Advaita Vedanta, Suddha Advaita, Viseshadvaita, Dvaita and various schools of Abhedabheda:

There are three famous commentaries (Bhāṣyas) on the Brahma Sūtra that shine in the history of Hindu philosophy. These are the 8th century C.E. commentary of Śaṅkara (Advaita) the 12th century C.E. commentary of Rāmānuja (Viśiṣṭādvaita) and the 13th century C.E. commentary by Madhva (Dvaita). These three are not the only commentaries. There appears to have been no less than twenty-one commentators on the Brahma Sūtra prior to Madhva (Sharma, vol.1 p.15), and Madhva is by no means the last commentator on the Brahma Sūtra either. Important names in the history of Indian theology are amongst the latter day commentators: Nimbārka (13th cent. C.E.), Śrkaṇṭha(15th cent. C.E.), Vallabha (16th cent. C.E.), and Baladeva (18th cent. C.E.). However, the majority of the commentaries prior to Śaṅkara have been lost to history. The philosophical positions expressed in the various commentaries fall into four major camps of Vedānta: Bhedābheda, Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita and Dvaita. They principally differ on the metaphysics of individual selves and Brahman, though there are also some striking ethical differences between these schools as well

Hindu Philosophy | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Metaphysics
Vedanta philosophies discuss three fundamental metaphysical categories and the relations between the three.[109]
  1. Brahman or Ishvara: the ultimate reality[110]
  2. Ātman or Jivātman: the individual soul, self[111]
  3. Prakriti/Jagat:[17] the empirical world, ever–changing physical universe, body and matter[112]

Vedanta - Wikipedia.

Advaita Vedanta:

Advaita Vedānta is one version of Vedānta. Vedānta is nominally a school of Indian philosophy, although in reality it is a label for any hermeneutics that attempts to provide a consistent interpretation of the philosophy of the Upaniṣads or, more formally, the canonical summary of the Upaniṣads, Bādarāyaņa’s Brahma Sūtra. Advaita is often translated as “non-dualism” though it literally means “non-secondness.” Although Śaṅkara is regarded as the promoter of Advaita Vedānta as a distinct school of Indian philosophy, the origins of this school predate Śaṅkara. The existence of an Advaita tradition is acknowledged by Śaṅkara in his commentaries. The names of Upanṣadic teachers such as Yajñavalkya, Uddalaka, and Bādarāyaņa, the author of the Brahma Sūtra, could be considered as representing the thoughts of early Advaita. The essential philosophy of Advaita is an idealist monism, and is considered to be presented first in the Upaniṣads and consolidated in the Brahma Sūtra by this tradition. According to Advaita metaphysics, Brahman—the ultimate, transcendent and immanent God of the latter Vedas—appears as the world because of its creative energy (māyā).

Vedanta, Advaita | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Viseshadvaita:

Rāmānuja (ācārya), the eleventh century South Indian philosopher, is the chief proponent of Viśiṣṭādvaita, which is one of the three main forms of the Orthodox Hindu philosophical school, Vedānta. As the prime philosopher of the Viśiṣṭādvaita tradition, Rāmānuja is one of the Indian philosophical tradition’s most important and influential figures. He was the first Indian philosopher to provide a systematic theistic interpretation of the philosophy of the Vedas, and is famous for arguing for the epistemic and soteriological significance of bhakti, or devotion to a personal God.

Ramanuja | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Dvaita:

The Dvaita or "dualist" school of Hindu Vedanta philosophy originated in 13th-century South India with Sri Madhvacarya (Madhva). Madhva, who considered himself an avatara of the wind-god Vayu, argued that a body of canonical texts called the "Vedanta" or "end of the Veda" taught the fundamental difference between the individual self or atman and the ultimate reality, brahman. According to Madhva there are two orders of reality: 1. svatantra, independent reality, which consists of Brahman alone and 2. paratantra, dependent reality, which consists of jivas (souls) and jada (lifeless objects). Although dependent reality would not exist apart from brahman's will, this very dependence creates a fundamental distinction between brahman and all else, implying a dualist view. By interpreting the Vedanta materials (especially the Upanisads, the Bhagavadgita and the Brahmasutras) along these lines, Madhva deliberately challenged the non-dualist reading in which the atman was identified with brahman. Madhva argued that the scriptures could not teach the identity of all beings because this would contradict ordinary perception, which tells us that we are different both from one another and from God.

Madhva | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Bhedaabedha:

Bhedābheda Vedānta is one of the several traditions of Vedānta philosophy in India. “Bhedābheda” is a Sanskrit word meaning “Difference and Non-Difference.” The characteristic position of all the different Bhedābheda Vedānta schools is that the individual self (jīvātman) is both different and not different from the ultimate reality known as Brahman. Bhedābheda reconciles the positions of two other major schools of Vedānta. The Advaita (Monist) Vedānta that claims the individual self is completely identical to Brahman, and the Dvaita (Dualist) Vedānta that teaches complete difference between the individual self and Brahman. However, each thinker within the Bhedābheda Vedānta tradition has his own particular understanding of the precise meanings of the philosophical terms “difference” and “non-difference.” Bhedābheda Vedāntic ideas can traced to some of the very oldest Vedāntic texts, including quite possibly Bādarāyaṇa’sBrahma Sūtra (app. 4th c. CE). Bhedābheda ideas also had an enormous influence on the devotional (bhakti) schools of India’s medieval period. Among medieval Bhedābheda thinkers are Vallabha (1479-1531 CE), founder of the Puṣṭimārga devotional sect now centered in Nathdwara, Rajasthan, and Caitanya (1485-1533 CE) the founder of the Gaudīya Vaiṣṇava sect based in the northeastern Indian state of West Bengal.

Bhedabheda Vedanta | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
 

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
Cont.

As the readers will now clearly see, if they did not know anything about Vedanta philosophy before, Vedanta is theistic philosophy, i.e. philosophy about God(Brahman) Its principal philosophical problems is about the relationship between three entities: God(Brahman/Ishvara) soul(Atman/Jiva) and universe(prakriti.jagat) and this leads to the diversity of schools of interpretation. Advaita(God, soul and universe are identical) Dvaita(God, soul and universe are not identical) Viseshadvaita(God soul and universe are part and parcel of one another, but different) and Bhedabedha(God, soul and universe are identical in some aspects, and different in others)

Vedanta is a well known ancient Hindu philosophy of India, its origins going back to about 3000 years ago(accepted dates)and is a very well modern documented philosophy in Modern academia. As you can see from the IEP articles above. If you studied it academically or at a traditional Hindu ashram, you would learn exactly what I have said in this and preceding posts. You will not encounter any of this pseudoscientific rubbish of Brahman being the "ur-field, the basis of all laws of physics, biology, and chemistry" that Sayak is presenting here.

This entire thread is an exercise in pseudoscience. Sayak is dressing up Hindu theology in fancy scientific word-salads. I wouldn't even be posting here, if he hadn't been misrepresenting Vedanta philosophy. If he only had the humility to say "These ideas are based on my own personal interpretation of Vedanta, and is not any accepted school of Vedanta" then I would respect him. As I respect Aupmanyav who does often say his ideas that Brahman is material energy/quantum field is his own peculiar interpretation, though I strongly disagree with him. Sayak, however, lacks this basic humility, he is presenting this interpretation of Brahman as the actual interpretation of Vedanta, and he is presenting my interpretation, which is not mine but the school of Advaita Vedanta, as an opinion. It is this arrogance that demands refutation.

What Sayak is doing is cherry picking bits from Vedanta(and even those bits he is has misinterpreted) and bits from Modern science, and putting them together to end up with a hodgepodge -- which is neither acceptable to scientists or Vedantists.
 
Last edited:

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
^^ I will once again repeat. In big letters, as Sayak has a habit of avoiding his opponents arguments, but when everybody can see I have made the argument, they will see Sayak is deliberately avoiding the argument, which thereby automatically discredits him:


And as usual you are selectively citing. What about the Upanishads that say "Then Brahman willed that he shall be many, then Brahman thought, Brahman is the Lord, Worship Brahman the creator etc

If you are trying to present an interpretation of Vedanta(Upanishads) then you have to present a coherent interpretation of all 13 principal Upanishads and Brahma sutras. That is what every Vedanta school has done, starting from Advaita Vedanta, Suddha Advaita, Viseshadvaita, Dvaita and various schools of Abhedabheda:

There are three famous commentaries (Bhāṣyas) on the Brahma Sūtra that shine in the history of Hindu philosophy. These are the 8th century C.E. commentary of Śaṅkara (Advaita) the 12th century C.E. commentary of Rāmānuja (Viśiṣṭādvaita) and the 13th century C.E. commentary by Madhva (Dvaita). These three are not the only commentaries. There appears to have been no less than twenty-one commentators on the Brahma Sūtra prior to Madhva (Sharma, vol.1 p.15), and Madhva is by no means the last commentator on the Brahma Sūtra either. Important names in the history of Indian theology are amongst the latter day commentators: Nimbārka (13th cent. C.E.), Śrkaṇṭha(15th cent. C.E.), Vallabha (16th cent. C.E.), and Baladeva (18th cent. C.E.). However, the majority of the commentaries prior to Śaṅkara have been lost to history. The philosophical positions expressed in the various commentaries fall into four major camps of Vedānta: Bhedābheda, Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita and Dvaita. They principally differ on the metaphysics of individual selves and Brahman, though there are also some striking ethical differences between these schools as well

Hindu Philosophy | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Metaphysics
Vedanta philosophies discuss three fundamental metaphysical categories and the relations between the three.[109]
  1. Brahman or Ishvara: the ultimate reality[110]
  2. Ātman or Jivātman: the individual soul, self[111]
  3. Prakriti/Jagat:[17] the empirical world, ever–changing physical universe, body and matter[112]
Vedanta - Wikipedia.

Advaita Vedanta:

Advaita Vedānta is one version of Vedānta. Vedānta is nominally a school of Indian philosophy, although in reality it is a label for any hermeneutics that attempts to provide a consistent interpretation of the philosophy of the Upaniṣads or, more formally, the canonical summary of the Upaniṣads, Bādarāyaņa’s Brahma Sūtra. Advaita is often translated as “non-dualism” though it literally means “non-secondness.” Although Śaṅkara is regarded as the promoter of Advaita Vedānta as a distinct school of Indian philosophy, the origins of this school predate Śaṅkara. The existence of an Advaita tradition is acknowledged by Śaṅkara in his commentaries. The names of Upanṣadic teachers such as Yajñavalkya, Uddalaka, and Bādarāyaņa, the author of the Brahma Sūtra, could be considered as representing the thoughts of early Advaita. The essential philosophy of Advaita is an idealist monism, and is considered to be presented first in the Upaniṣads and consolidated in the Brahma Sūtra by this tradition. According to Advaita metaphysics, Brahman—the ultimate, transcendent and immanent God of the latter Vedas—appears as the world because of its creative energy (māyā).

Vedanta, Advaita | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Viseshadvaita:

Rāmānuja (ācārya), the eleventh century South Indian philosopher, is the chief proponent of Viśiṣṭādvaita, which is one of the three main forms of the Orthodox Hindu philosophical school, Vedānta. As the prime philosopher of the Viśiṣṭādvaita tradition, Rāmānuja is one of the Indian philosophical tradition’s most important and influential figures. He was the first Indian philosopher to provide a systematic theistic interpretation of the philosophy of the Vedas, and is famous for arguing for the epistemic and soteriological significance of bhakti, or devotion to a personal God.

Ramanuja | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Dvaita:

The Dvaita or "dualist" school of Hindu Vedanta philosophy originated in 13th-century South India with Sri Madhvacarya (Madhva). Madhva, who considered himself an avatara of the wind-god Vayu, argued that a body of canonical texts called the "Vedanta" or "end of the Veda" taught the fundamental difference between the individual self or atman and the ultimate reality, brahman. According to Madhva there are two orders of reality: 1. svatantra, independent reality, which consists of Brahman alone and 2. paratantra, dependent reality, which consists of jivas (souls) and jada (lifeless objects). Although dependent reality would not exist apart from brahman's will, this very dependence creates a fundamental distinction between brahman and all else, implying a dualist view. By interpreting the Vedanta materials (especially the Upanisads, the Bhagavadgita and the Brahmasutras) along these lines, Madhva deliberately challenged the non-dualist reading in which the atman was identified with brahman. Madhva argued that the scriptures could not teach the identity of all beings because this would contradict ordinary perception, which tells us that we are different both from one another and from God.

Madhva | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Bhedaabedha:

Bhedābheda Vedānta is one of the several traditions of Vedānta philosophy in India. “Bhedābheda” is a Sanskrit word meaning “Difference and Non-Difference.” The characteristic position of all the different Bhedābheda Vedānta schools is that the individual self (jīvātman) is both different and not different from the ultimate reality known as Brahman. Bhedābheda reconciles the positions of two other major schools of Vedānta. The Advaita (Monist) Vedānta that claims the individual self is completely identical to Brahman, and the Dvaita (Dualist) Vedānta that teaches complete difference between the individual self and Brahman. However, each thinker within the Bhedābheda Vedānta tradition has his own particular understanding of the precise meanings of the philosophical terms “difference” and “non-difference.” Bhedābheda Vedāntic ideas can traced to some of the very oldest Vedāntic texts, including quite possibly Bādarāyaṇa’sBrahma Sūtra (app. 4th c. CE). Bhedābheda ideas also had an enormous influence on the devotional (bhakti) schools of India’s medieval period. Among medieval Bhedābheda thinkers are Vallabha (1479-1531 CE), founder of the Puṣṭimārga devotional sect now centered in Nathdwara, Rajasthan, and Caitanya (1485-1533 CE) the founder of the Gaudīya Vaiṣṇava sect based in the northeastern Indian state of West Bengal.

Bhedabheda Vedanta | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Medieval era exposition and Vedanta schools, created 1500 years after the upanisads were written, while certainly inspired from the Upanisads, are NOT the upanisads. You follow these later traditions. I do not. No harm in that. But its absolutely ridiculous to go around saying that these specialist medieval schools have some monopoly on Hindu holy books. They form specialist and important and legitimate subsects within Hinduism that some people follow, but Upanisads, Vedas and Gita and the Brahman and/or Isvara that is revealed in them was widely read, meditated upon and realized before these schools were born and continue to be read, meditated and understood by Hindus outside these schools.

As usual, your claims comes from encyclopedia's and dictionaries through fourth hand analysis (Upanisad->Brahmasutra->commentry->gloss->translation in English) while I source my own directly from the upanisads. No harm in what you do, I have seen that you have difficulty in understanding the upanisads directly (or science for that matter), and Hinduism always encourages people with go with simpler ideas and models before tackling more harder though comprehensive ways of grasping the ultimate. But your ridiculous arrogance that somehow you have understood it all and others who say different are false, along with your clear attempts to mix Abrahamic exclusivity and creationist apologetics concerns me. I think you are deeply locked in a fundamentalist Abrahamic mindset which has compromised your ability to really gain insight from the praxis, the principles and the scriptures of dharmic traditions. So once again I would encourage you to become a disciple of a good Hindu teacher rather than go around doing what you are doing now. Its not helping you or anybody else.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Cont.

As the readers will now clearly see, if they did not know anything about Vedanta philosophy before, Vedanta is theistic philosophy, i.e. philosophy about God(Brahman) Its principal philosophical problems is about the relationship between three entities: God(Brahman/Ishvara) soul(Atman/Jiva) and universe(prakriti.jagat) and this leads to the diversity of schools of interpretation. Advaita(God, soul and universe are identical) Dvaita(God, soul and universe are not identical) Viseshadvaita(God soul and universe are part and parcel of one another, but different) and Bhedabedha(God, soul and universe are identical in some aspects, and different in others)

Vedanta is a well known ancient Hindu philosophy of India, its origins going back to about 3000 years ago(accepted dates)and is a very well modern documented philosophy in Modern academia. As you can see from the IEP articles above. If you studied it academically or at a traditional Hindu ashram, you would learn exactly what I have said in this and preceding posts. You will not encounter any of this pseudoscientific rubbish of Brahman being the "ur-field, the basis of all laws of physics, biology, and chemistry" that Sayak is presenting here.

This entire thread is an exercise in pseudoscience. Sayak is dressing up Hindu theology in fancy scientific word-salads. I wouldn't even be posting here, if he hadn't been misrepresenting Vedanta philosophy. If he only had the humility to say "These ideas are based on my own personal interpretation of Vedanta, and is not any accepted school of Vedanta" then I would respect him. As I respect Aupmanyav who does often say his ideas that Brahman is material energy/quantum field is his own peculiar interpretation, though I strongly disagree with him. Sayak, however, lacks this basic humility, he is presenting this interpretation of Brahman as the actual interpretation of Vedanta, and he is presenting my interpretation, which is not mine but the school of Advaita Vedanta, as an opinion. It is this arrogance that demands refutation.

What Sayak is doing is cherry picking bits from Vedanta(and even those bits he is has misinterpreted) and bits from Modern science, and putting them together to end up with a hodgepodge -- which is neither acceptable to scientists or Vedantists.
As the reader also clearly sees Spirit_Warrior, a fundamentalist theist in disguise, is distorting Hinduism to cater to his stark and preconceived biases. Its unlearned zealots like him that cause real harm in any religion, but this harm is limited as long as discerning people have the wisdom to pay sadly deluded beings as little attention as possible other than refute all their claims as I have done.

Of course if anybody has any questions regarding what has been said so far, I will be happy to respond with justifications. Arguing with a zealot is pointless, as everybody knows.
 

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
Medieval era exposition and Vedanta schools, created 1500 years after the upanisads were written, while certainly inspired from the Upanisads, are NOT the upanisads. You follow these later traditions. I do not. No harm in that

<snip>

While I source my own directly from the upanisads. No harm in what you do, I have seen that you have difficulty in understanding the upanisads directly

The emboldened is really the crux of the problem here because it exposes a massive arrogance problem. Sayak thinks(arrogantly) that the last 1500 years of hermenuetics of the Upanishads(i.e. Vedanta philosophy) is all useless, they all got all the Upanishads wrong, and that he is the only one to get them right. He also thinks that with his high school knowledge in Sanskrit, every other Sanskrit expert that has translated the Upanishads, Brahma sutras etc are all wrong -- and only he is right.

The problem is he ends up in a solipsistic universe, where he becomes the measure of truth. So his interpretation of the Upanishads is right, whatever anybody else has said doesn't matter, whatever anybody agrees with his interpretation is irrelevant, and he is also the judge to decide he is right and everybody else is wrong.

Now, a humble person, wouldn't just automatically dismiss what's been written on the Upanishads in the last 1500 years. Instead, we must ask the question, why in 15000 years not a single school of Vedanta came up with his interpretation of "Ur-field" (whatever that means) and all have interpreted Brahman to be God? Well, this is the very first thing I would ask too if I came up with a radically different interpretation, why didn't anybody else see it? Rather than pat my own back for my superior IQ to everybody else. It simply reveals an arrogance problem.

Secondly, let us accept that 1500 years of Vedanta philosophy all got the Upanishads wrong, and all the modern commentators which includes Western commentators got it wrong to, only Sayak has got it right. Then why hasn't Sayak started his own school of Vedanta by offering a consistent hermenutics of the Upanishads, Brahma Sutras and Bhagvad Gita to back up his interpretation of Brahman as "Ur-field" In order to that he needs to reconcile all the contradictory verses in the 13 principal Upanishads to give a consistent interpretation of the Upanishads. He can't just pick one or two verses that he thinks fits his interpretation, and then ignore thousands of other verses. Remember what I said in my earlier post, and I even enlarged the letters, that he will ignore contrary verses:

And as usual you are selectively citing. What about the Upanishads that say "Then Brahman willed that he shall be many, then Brahman thought, Brahman is the Lord, Worship Brahman the creator etc

I have pointed out above by citing directly from several Upanishads which describe Brahman as Lord, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent, the Great Person, The Highest God, the creator of this universe, that is conscious, wills and thinks. It is understandable then why 1500 years of Vedanta philosophy have taken Brahman to be God. Now Sayak comes along claiming it is "ur-field" Okay, then, then reconcile your 'ur-field' with these other verses that speak of Brahman as God.

Sayak will do no such thing because he lives in a solipsistic universe, where he alone is the measure of truth.

So once again I would encourage you to become a disciple of a good Hindu teacher rather than go around doing what you are doing now. Its not helping you or anybody else.

This is so ironic it is funny, Sayak himself does not have any formal religious teaching(I have lol) He sits there reading scriptures, making judgements all by himself, thinking he is the only one so far whose got it all right. Well, sure, in a solipsistic universe you can think you're the king of world, but as soon as you enter our universe, you have to justify your claims. You can't expect anybody to take you seriously without justifying your interpretation. This means you need to reconcile the verses in the Upanishads that say Brahman is God with your own interpretation. Otherwise, stop wasting our time.
 
Last edited:

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
The emboldened is really the crux of the problem here because it exposes a massive arrogance problem. Sayak thinks(arrogantly) that the last 1500 years of hermenuetics of the Upanishads(i.e. Vedanta philosophy) is all useless, they all got all the Upanishads wrong, and that he is the only one to get them right. He also thinks that with his high school knowledge in Sanskrit, every other Sanskrit expert that has translated the Upanishads, Brahma sutras etc are all wrong -- and only he is right.

The problem is he ends up in a solipsistic universe, where he becomes the measure of truth. So his interpretation of the Upanishads is right, whatever anybody else has said doesn't matter, whatever anybody agrees with his interpretation is irrelevant, and he is also the judge to decide he is right and everybody else is wrong.

Now, a humble person, wouldn't just automatically dismiss what's been written on the Upanishads in the last 1500 years. Instead, we must ask the question, why in 15000 years not a single school of Vedanta came up with his interpretation of "Ur-field" (whatever that means) and all have interpreted Brahman to be God? Well, this is the very first thing I would ask too if I came up with a radically different interpretation, why didn't anybody else see it? Rather than pat my own back for my superior IQ to everybody else. It simply reveals an arrogance problem.

Secondly, let us accept that 1500 years of Vedanta philosophy all got the Upanishads wrong, and all the modern commentators which includes Western commentators got it wrong to, only Sayak has got it right. Then why hasn't Sayak started his own school of Vedanta by offering a consistent hermenutics of the Upanishads, Brahma Sutras and Bhagvad Gita to back up his interpretation of Brahman as "Ur-field" In order to that he needs to reconcile all the contradictory verses in the 13 principal Upanishads to give a consistent interpretation of the Upanishads. He can't just pick one or two verses that he thinks fits his interpretation, and then ignore thousands of other verses. Remember what I said in my earlier post, and I even enlarged the letters, that he will ignore contrary verses:

And as usual you are selectively citing. What about the Upanishads that say "Then Brahman willed that he shall be many, then Brahman thought, Brahman is the Lord, Worship Brahman the creator etc

I have pointed out above by citing directly from several Upanishads which describe Brahman as Lord, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent, the Great Person, The Highest God, the creator of this universe, that is conscious, wills and thinks. It is understandable then why 1500 years of Vedanta philosophy have taken Brahman to be God. Now Sayak comes along claiming it is "ur-field" Okay, then, then reconcile your 'ur-field' with these other verses that speak of Brahman as God.

Sayak will do no such thing because he lives in a solipsistic universe, where he alone is the measure of truth.



This is so ironic it is funny, Sayak himself does not have any formal religious teaching(I have lol) He sits there reading scriptures, making judgements all by himself, thinking he is the only one so far whose got it all right. Well, sure, in a solipsistic universe you can think you're the king of world, but as soon as you enter our universe, you have to justify your claims. You can't expect anybody to take you seriously without justifying your interpretation. This means you need to reconcile the verses in the Upanishads that say Brahman is God with your own interpretation. Otherwise, stop wasting our time.
Do you want a debate on the nature of Brahman in the Upanisads? I am happy to accept the challenge. I have been avoiding in pointing out the embarrassing litany of mistaken concepts you have proposed time and time again about the Upanisads so as to avoid useless debate with a fellow Hindu who is newly converted to the dharma. You are of course wrong about my religious education. I have spent 20 years in weekly Upanisadic and Gita study with Swami-jis of Ramakrishna math in India and their sakhas-s in US discussing each and every aspect of the complex and insightful literature with care followed by meditation. I have myself led many of the discussion sections with his blessings.

I have already done so, but you do not read. Transpersonal, transconcious, transnatural, transrational Brahman appears in many forms to those who look for it depending on their characters and guna-s. For those who primarily connect to Truth through love and relationship, Brahman, the Self within all selves, appear to them as a personal God (as Gita affirms). There is no contradiction or diversity of essence here. It always needs to be remembered that:-

As a spider sends forth its thread, and as tiny sparks spring forth from a fire, so indeed do all the vital functions (prana), all the worlds, all the gods, and all beings spring forth from this Self (Atman). Its hidden name (Upanisad) is "The Real behind the real", for the real consists of the vital functions, and the Self is the Real behind the vital functions. -BHU

Tell, you have read the Upanisads and the Gita haven't you? Or just the philosophical glosses of the Vedanta commentators?

Do you currently even have a Hindu group where you belong to and read/worship/meditate?
 

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
Do you want a debate on the nature of Brahman in the Upanisads? I am happy to accept the challenge.

Sure. Can you also clarify to me in simple language what your position on the nature of Brahman is. What do you even mean by 'Ur-field'?

I have been avoiding in pointing out the embarrassing litany of mistaken concepts you have proposed time and time again about the Upanisads so as to avoid useless debate with a fellow Hindu who is newly converted to the dharma. You are of course wrong about my religious education. I have spent 20 years in weekly Upanisadic and Gita study with Swami-jis of Ramakrishna math in India and their sakhas-s in US discussing each and every aspect of the complex and insightful literature with care followed by meditation. I have myself led many of the discussion sections with his blessings.

I am not that new Sayak, I grew up watching the Mahabharata, Ramayana, I spent hours on hours talking about Dharmic philosophy with my Gyanis at the Gudwara. I started reading Vedas in my teenage and starting reading the Arya Samaaj magazine. In my early 20's I joined various Neo-Hindu Yoga groups, from the Tantra lineage, and then I went onto study informally(i.e. by myself) Nyaya, Vaiseshika, Samkhya and Vedanta philosophy. I took my interest seriously so I decided to study Philosophy academically as a mature student, but I really wanted to study Hindu philosophy, but I made it a point to bring in a Hindu perspective in everyone of my essays and then did my undergrad dissertation in Hindu philosophy too wrt Philosophy of Science. Not content with this, I went to India for years studying Yoga and Vedanta in Rishikesh, Utterkashi under various gurus. In a way you can see I have been deeply involved in Hinduism from as young as the age of 5, I chanted mantras spontaneously from this age. That is almost 35 years.

It is very rare to have such a deep interest in Hinduism in the way I do from such a young age. I can't remember any past lives, but I would not be surprised if I was involved in this for life times. Several Hindu gurus have told me I have a very rare soul. I have not come across many people like me.

I have already done so, but you do not read. Transpersonal, transconcious, transnatural, transrational Brahman appears in many forms to those who look for it depending on their characters and guna-s. For those who primarily connect to Truth through love and relationship, Brahman, the Self within all selves, appear to them as a personal God (as Gita affirms). There is no contradiction or diversity of essence here. It always needs to be remembered that:-

Please spare me word-salads. I want clear non-scientific words on what you think Brahman is. You just told me Brahman is not conscious, but I have shown you several verses in the Upanishads which explicitly state Brahman is conscious, omniscient, Lord, God etc. This is how every Vedanta school interpreted it too. Please describe what your interpretation is.

As a spider sends forth its thread, and as tiny sparks spring forth from a fire, so indeed do all the vital functions (prana), all the worlds,
all the gods, and all beings spring forth from this Self (Atman). Its hidden name (Upanisad) is "The Real behind the real", for the real consists of the vital functions, and the Self is the Real behind the vital functions. -BHU

How are you interpreting this? I am interpreting this in the standard way that interpreters medieval and modern have interpreted it. As emanationism. This is the philosophy that says that this universe emanates from Brahman, rather than the other philosophy of creationism,, that says that this universe was created by Brahman. It is saying that Brahman transforms himself, or a part of himself into the universe. The idea goes back into Rig Veda book 10 in the Purusha Sukta, where it shows how 1/4th of the Purusha is sacrificed and transformed into this universe, all the words, gods and beings it emerge from that, while 3/4th remain abstract and hidden. The analogies used also indicate the same idea; the spiders web, emanates from part of the the spider itself and the the sparks emanate from the fire itself; neither the web or the sparks are fully the the spider or the fire, but just part of them emanated. Similarly, this entire universe is only a part of Brahman's emanation, not all of it.

There are two philosophies associated with Vedanta/Hinduism by several scholars and commentators: Pantheism and Emanationism. Pantheism is the philosophy that says God is everything, everything that you see is God alone and Emanationism is the philosophy that says that everything is emanated from God. So everything is God and emanated from God.

Now, you keep accusing me of mistaking Abrahamic ideas for Vedanta ones, but actually I am doing no such thing. Pantheism and Emanationism are anti-Abrahamic ideas. They are so anti-Abrahamic, that several scholars like Hegel and John Stuart Mill condemned Hindu philosophy teaching this. If you speak to an orthodox Christian and Muslim, they will insist on the opposite Monotheism, there is only one God and God is totally transcendent and separate from this creation and creationism that God creates this universe. Therefore, your criticism that I am mixing Abrahamic ideas with Vedanta ones is unjustified.

My criticism that you are mixing Vedanta ideas with Modern science is justified though. Just look at what this discussion has become, it is turned int a theological debate about the nature of Brahman, the Hindu concept of God. This has got nothing to do with Modern science, but here you are smuggling in the Hindu concept of God as a scientific theory, and that is why many materialists/atheists/scientists here have told you to "check it at the door when you are doing science" or outright said you are peddling pseudoscience. Stop mixing religious and spiritual concepts with modern scientific ones.

Besides tell if Brahman is a scientific theory what is the theory describing and what testable predictions does it make? If you are claiming to do science you should be able to describe in clear language what the theory is describing(atoms, cells, stars, electric fields etc) and what it is predicting.

Tell, you have read the Upanisads and the Gita haven't you? Or just the philosophical glosses of the Vedanta commentators?

You are asking me a silly question. I have studied Vedanta formally at an Ashram, so of course I have read the Upanishads and the Gita. I have read several different translations of the Upanishads and Gita over about 15 years and read it in Sanskrit too with the padapath(word for word meanings) I have read close to a 100 shastras and scriptures. I have also read hundreds of secondary books and articles. I do know my Hinduism reasonably well.
So, caution, I can catch you out when you are misrepresenting ideas.
 
Last edited:

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Sure. Can you also clarify to me in simple language what your position on the nature of Brahman is. What do you even mean by 'Ur-field'?
Let's start with:-
You have repeatedly claimed that I said Brahman was an Ur-field. Please quote where in this thread I used the word?
Second why do you believe that prajnana Brahman means consciousness is Brahman when prajnana means discriminating knowledge, understanding or wisdom and not consciousness?
Sanskrit Dictionary

प्रज्ञा 1 Intelligence, understanding, intellect, wisdom; आकारसदृशप्रज्ञः प्रज्ञया सदृशागमः R.1.15; नाभिनन्दति न द्वेष्टि तस्य प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठिता Bg.2.57; शस्त्रं निहन्ति पुरुषस्य शरीरमेकं प्रज्ञा कुलं च विभवं यशश्च हन्ति ॥ Subhāṣ. -2 Discernment, discrimination, judgment; इयं निष्ठा बहुविधा प्रज्ञया त्वध्यवस्यति Mb.14.3.24. -3 Device or design. -4 A wise or learned woman. -5 Longing for (वासना); impression (संस्कार); तं विद्याकर्मणि समन्वारभेते पूर्वप्रज्ञा च Bṛi. Up.4.4.2. -6 N. of the goddess Sarasvatī. -7 A particular Śakti or energy. -8 A true or transcendental wisdom;
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
In my opinion, although i do think it might be more than that, natural refers to something that CAN behave within explained models for... Well. Nature. A thing that doesn't behave exactly THAT way, is by definition, not natural...

If a thing or phenomenon would be observable and testable through models accessible to science, then it by definition is natural.

So a supposedly "supernatural" phenomenon or thing is in actuality only supernatural until observed and tested. Then it by definition, becomes natural.

I "feel" that "natural" is a scientific term, not one from feeling.
Sorry science believes, for now, that only physical entities behave that way.
Let us, for a moment assume, that the laws of dependent origination and Kamma in Buddhism is true. In that case we have a highly regular and predictable phenomena that is not physical but whose actions, consequences and rules can be inferrable by testing and observation.
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
Sorry science believes, for now, that only physical entities behave that way.

I disagree. I think scientists instead tend to "believe"(how can you verify someone ELSE's beliefs?) that everything is physical in the first place. But i don't think "Science" has a belief: How can a philosophy have belief? It's not even conscious.

I think you are putting too much stock on the "physical" aspect. It doesn't mean anything: It just refers to something that CAN be measured using... Well... Physics. And by definition, if it CAN be measured like that, then it is "natural" even if the thing or phenomena didn't seem "real" in the first place.

NOTE: "energy" is physical too.

In that case we have a highly regular and predictable phenomena that is not physical but whose actions, consequences and rules can be inferrable by testing and observation.

No we don't. I mean, it's a mistake on your part to think of it as a thing or a phenomenon in the first place: Kamma is intention.
 
Last edited:

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Prajnana is a synonym for consciousness. It is often translated as consciousness:

Here:

"Rig Veda proclaims 'prajnanam brahma that is, prajnana is Brahma, Prajnana means awareness, consciousness, which is pervading the subtlest texture of the cosmos and is present and active everywhere, at all the places and all the time."

What does "Prajnanam Brahma" Mean?

Here:

There are four Mahavakyas, or great statements in the Upanishads, which have a profound significance as pointers to Reality. They are: (1) Prajnanam Brahma – Consciousness is Brahman; (2) Aham Brahmasmi – I am Brahman: (3) Tat Tvam Asi – That Thou Art; (4) Ayam Atma Brahma – This Self is Brahman.

Discrimination of the Mahavakyas - The Philosophy of the Panchadasi - Chapter 5

Here:

Prajnanam Brahma means, Consciousness is the Reality, Consciousness is All. For the spiritual seeker, perhaps it may be easier to start from the opposite direction. In the beginning, one can meditate on the truth that All is Consciousness.

Prajnanam Brahma: Consciousness is Brahman | Meditation Is For You

Here:

Home Religion Dictionaries thesauruses pictures and press releases Prajñānam Brahma

Brahma (Skt., ‘consciousness is Brahman’). One of the five Hindu mahāvākyas (great precepts): ‘All that is is guided by prajñānam, is founded on prajñānam. Prajñānam is Brahman’ (Aitareya Upaniṣad 3. 5. 3).

Here:

The Upanishads envisaged the Truth in the following Mahavakyas:

Prajnanam Brahma: "Consciousness is infinite, the absolute, the highest Truth."

Here:

Our consciousness is responsible for all our sensory activities. Though it does not directly see or hear, it makes these activities possible. So many times we just look…and not see. What’s missing here is consciousness. It is the final meaning of our mental or physical activities…and is Brahman (the Ultimate). Brahman (the Ultimate) is that which is Absolute, fills all space, is complete in itself, to which there is no second, and which is continuously present in everything, from the creator down to the lowest of matter. It, being everywhere, is also in each and every individual.

This is the meaning of the Mahavakya, ‘Prajnanam Brahma’ occurring in the Aitareya Upanishad.

MAHAVAKYAS – PRAJNANAM BRAHMA – Consciousness is the Ultimate

Here:

Meditation and Its Practices

Here:

Meditation as a path to God-Realization. A study in the spiritual teachings of Swani Prabhavananda and his assessment of Christian spirituality

Here:

One Mahavakya from each Veda is taken to represent all the Mahavakyas in that particular Veda . Vedas being four namely Rg , Yajur , Sama and Atharva , there are four Mahavakyas . And they are :1. Prajnanam brahma , Consciousness is Brahman in the Aitreya Upanishad from the Rg Veda. 2. Aham brahmasmi - I am Brahman in the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad from the Yajur Veda . 3. Tat tvam asi - That thou art in the Chandyogya Upanishad from the Sama Veda and 4. Ayamatma brahma - this Self is Brahman in the Mandukya Upanishad from Atharvana Veda

the four Mahavakyas | Vedanta Philosophy | India

Others synonyms used are intelligence, knowledge and wisdom but they are all used equivalently to mean the same thing. Finally, we shall look at the Aitreya Upanishad itself to see the context in how Pranjnana is used:

Who is he whom we all worship as the Self? He by whom one sees, one hears, one smells the various odours, one is able to speak, one is able to distinguish the tasty from the tasteless.
That which is the heart, the mind, it is consciousness perception, discrimination, intelligence, mental brilliance, vision, determination, thought power, thoughtfulness, impulse, memory, decision, goal, life, desire, control. All these are different names of intelligence only

The Aitareya Upanishad Translation by Jayaram V


Thus, it is established beyond a reason for doubt that Brahman is a sentient entity, that is conscious, perceives, aware, discriminates, thinks, desires, remembers, controls etc. He is also described as omniscient, omnipresent, the Lord to be worshipped. It is very clear then Brahman is the Hindu concept of God.

It seems like you are suggesting Brahman is not a sentient principle? If so, please prove it. As it is clear to anybody who can read that Brahman of the Upanishads is a thinking, seeing, feeling entity.
I am aware that it has become quite fashionable for neo-Hindu-s to conflate everything as consciousness. That is all that these internet links show, personal opinion without providing any linguistic reasoning as to why prajna can ever be considered synonymous with consciousness when all Sanskrit dictionaries say it is not. The simple fact is wisdom (prajna) is NOT synonymous with consciousness and never was.

Can you find a Sanskrit dictionary where Prajna is said to be synonymous with consciousness (chetna, sangya)? I have failed to find one. It is strange indeed that one of the so-called mahavkya-s basic meaning has to be changed in order to support a neo-Hindu philosophy to make it appear to have common cause with 19th and 20th century Western spiritualism. (from Madame Blavatsky to 1970 flower revolution).

Here is an example
http://illa.ho.ua/materials/dictionarys/MacDonell.Sanskrit-English_Dictionary-50.pdf

pra -gna., a. intelligent; knowing, acquainted with (-0): (a)-t4,/. knowledge; -pnapti, /. instruction, information; kind of magic art personified: -kausika, m. N.of a teacher familiar with this art. f . information; discrimination, judgment, intelligence, understanding; wisdom, knowledge; purpose, resolve: -grupta, pp. protected by wisdom ; -Aakshus, n. eye of understanding ; a. seeing with the eye of understanding; having understanding in place of eyes, blind; -Jidhya, TO. (rich in wisdom), N.

pragnana:- n. cognisance ; knowledge; token of recognition, d


By the way, Jayram's translation of Aitereya 3 is somewhat off. Here is the proper translation (Upanisads Oxford translation, Upanisads Olevelle and many others) .You can see the basic flow of the translation available everywhere with Advaitists arbitrarily putting in consciousness where it does not belong:-

"Who is this self (atman)?"- that is how we venerate.
Which of these is the self? Is it that by which one sees? Or hears? Or smells odors? Or utters speech? Or distinguishes between what is tasty and what is not? Is it the heart and the mind? Is it awareness? Perception? Discernment? Cognition? Wisdom? Insight? Steadfastness? Thought? Reflection? Drive? Memory? Intention? Purpose? Will? Love? Desire? But these are various names of knowledge.

It is brahman; it is Indra; it is Prajapati; it is all gods. It is these five immense beings-earth, wind, space, the waters, and the lights; It is these beings, as well as those that are small mixtures of those;
It is living beings of various sorts - those that are born from eggs, from wombs from sweat and from sprouts. It is horses, cattle, men, and elephants. It is everything that has life - those that move, those that fly, and those that are stationary.

Knowledge is the eye of all of that, and on knowing it is founded. Knowledge is the eye of the world, and knowledge, the foundation. Brahman is knowing.

It is with this self consisting of knowledge that he went up from this world and, having obtained all his desires in the heavenly world up there, became immortal.


As I see it, this is just another formulation of Yajnavalkya-s premise of Brahman as the knower. Indeed the passage clearly shows the various cognitive capacities and consciousness as being aspects knowledge, just like all the material elements and living things with knowledge or knowing as the primary essence that is Brahman. I do not see how this can support your premise. It supports my premise that Brahman transcends consciousness just like it transcends matter and both consciousness and matter are emanations or aspects of Brahman in the plural world of diversity.

I am still waiting for you to point out where I used the word ur-field for Brahman. You disparaged me multiple times for saying it. So, show me where.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I did not say it was exclusively a mental creature. Flying and smiling are physical, albeit visible only to other fairies. It is mental (pun intended) only for what concerns blueness.
If the impression of blue (i.e. blueness) is located in your mind only (which you are considering non-physical here) while the other properties (flying and smiling) is co-located in the physical space-time outside of your mind, then what justifies your assertion that there exists a single entity fairy which is blue, flying and smiling and invisible? It seems blueness is a property of your mind while invisibility, flying and smiling are properties of the physical entity called the fairy. This is similar your feeling of fear when seeing a snake. The emotional property of fear does not reside in the physical entity snake at all and cannot be attributed as the property of the snake.

I would also like to know in what sense the fairly is invisible if you can detect it. If you can't detect it, how can you know its blue and flying instead of orange and swimming?

And we believe that consciousness would not exist without a fairy flying and smiling around you. They become conscious by flying and smiling around themselves.
So, if I am tonked on the head and fall unconscious, the phenomenon of getting hit on the head is not responsible for me being unconscious?

Not all lettuces are conscious. Because they did not have the blue fairy smiling and flying around them. We are allowed to eat only this kind. Once I was about to eat a conscious one, but it promptly informed me it that it might find that suboptimal, being conscious and all.
If you can see it and talk to it, how is it invisible? Why can't everybody see it?






To believe that something will be, is an admission that that something is not. So, I also believe that my blue fairy theory will become part of science.
In what manner? How can it be validated or falsified? I have provided certain predictions in an earlier post. Do you have any?



With "we", do you mean the scientists? I know what spiritual people deny. You can believe your Braman as much as you want, but when you enter a lab, you must check it at the door,
No, Hindus in general. Actually I do not have to check Brahman theory at the door. Two important outcomes, if the idea of Brahman is correct, is that apparently disparate phenomena will have subtle and hidden unity of structure and form if one looks at them carefully. Needless to say that is one of the fundamental drivers not only of basic physics but also the drive to multi-disciplinary research and applications. i have found this a significant and fruitful intuition in my scientific projects.
 

VioletVortex

Well-Known Member
I used to hold Gnostic beliefs. I believed in Chaosophy, the concept that there is a struggle between two forces-Chaos and Cosmos. Chaos is the realm of infinity, meaning infinite power, infinite potential, infinite sentience, infinite suffering, infinite pleasure, and lastly, the infinite potential to create. This is how Cosmos came into existence, it was formed out of the potential for Chaos to create a "bubble" so to speak of Cosmos within itself. Cosmos is thus bad, and should be destroyed, hence Gnosis. I now know this to be absurd and self contradictory, which is why I no longer believe it.

Now, I am partially a materialist, and partially a spiritualist. Spirituality and the material world are both deeply intertwined, and they are both of equal matter. I don't see why one should dismiss the value of something that can be objectively proved.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
My point is that arguing this vs that (theist vs non-theist, etc.) is missing the point yet it is also all that we have to work with. A dance around a center we cannot touch but to which we aim. Brahman is a being and yet not a being. He/She/It is simultaneously contradictory things. This does not rule out experience and rationality as we have particle/wave duality as a firm scientific theory of the nature of matter experiencable in a lab environment well-defined.

So matter is and is not matter. You see?!
 
Top